AOC Thinks Concentrated Wealth Is Incompatible With Democracy. So Did Our Founders.

the republican party has cheated voters out iof their rights to vote for decades


there is court documented PROOF in our courts right up to the SCOTUS

YOU CHEAT ASSHOLE
 
StoneByStone said:
You can have a society with wealthy people but not concentrated wealth. I think few people understand just how bad concentrated wealth is in America. We could tax the fuck out of the 1%, spread wealth throughout the population, and the 1% would still be rich.
Click to expand...

With the added bonus that the %1 would no longer have any fucks. :awesome:
 
evince said:
the republican party has cheated voters out iof their rights to vote for decades


there is court documented PROOF in our courts right up to the SCOTUS

YOU CHEAT ASSHOLE
Click to expand...

Been hittin the old crack pipe pretty hard this morning, eh Deshy? You really are a one trick, liar pony. :bdh:
 
evince said:
voting citizens and representatives


Hmmmmm just what the word Democracy said is a type of democracy
Click to expand...

Go to the standard for the rule of law when you are attempting to re-define the founding principles of this nation. Why do you attempt to redefine what is written and comprehended at and 8th grade level in English Text? Article 4 Section 4 Clause 1. Read it and define republicanism via the founding documents found in Federalist no. 10 of the federalist papers. And then get back to me. The evidence is objective in the fact that it reads the same today as it did 250 years ago. You can't redefine the US CONSTITUTION and the words found therein.

I presented a verbatim text found in the constitution. You present nothing but Bull Shit ad hominem personal opinion that conflicts directly with the words found in the US Constitution.

Again this is not a democracy....its a REPUBLIC. The correct term is documented historical truth.....the United States is a federalist CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.


What does that mean? It means the US is ruled (through representation) via the legal standard....the United States Constitution. Far different from a democracy that is ruled via majority mob rule.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Federalism: A central government that promotes self rule and regulation by the signatory STATES that form this UNION, that guarantees republican type government rule to all STATES. I don't see the words or even the IDEA that democracies are guaranteed anywhere in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers.
 
Last edited:
StoneByStone said:
Semantics. The point is that the Founders knew what a threat concentrated wealth is to society. They may not have used the term "Liberal Socialist," but they were Liberal Socialists. They also didn't use the term "Ethnic Nationalist," but if you know anything about the Founders, you know they were Ethnic Nationalists.




First of all, neither party wants to take away personal property.
Secondly, neither party shows contempt against people who were lucky enough to become successful. However, some Democrats want to redistribute wealth because that would improve society for everyone, including the rich.
No, wealth redistribution would not FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE America from a representative republic.
Which failed democracies are you talking about?
Click to expand...

LMAO......more ad homiem BULL SHIT adding words that you self professed DO NOT EXIST in the Constitution (guess what?) Words that do not exist belong to who? The states/people the 10th amendment aka as the Bill of Rights. You can't OPINE words into the constitution. Its enjoyable to think that you knew exactly what the founders intended BUT DID NOT SAY. :laugh:

That's all any socialist has to say.....nothing objectively provable via history actual.....nothing but ad hominem OPINION that is bent to fit an argument that can't be supported via actual text or history. :palm:
 
evince said:
the founders wrote the post office right into the constitution ass brain


the founders were fine with socialistic programs


AND created a NEW form of democracy


the world in fact had to change the definition of Democracy because of the hybrid of government the founders created


these russo bot holes were programed to hate dictionaries folks


oh and encyclopedias


and math


and science


and history
Click to expand...

Still the same old tiresome bullshit from the same tiresome dumb cunt

No original thought ever from you

Stop being a dishonest cunt. Just be a regular cunt
 
Ralph said:
LMAO......more ad homiem BULL SHIT
Click to expand...

Ad homiem? When did I insult you?

adding words that you self professed DO NOT EXIST in the Constitution (guess what?) Words that do not exist belong to who? The states/people the 10th amendment aka as the Bill of Rights. You can't OPINE words into the constitution. Its enjoyable to think that you knew exactly what the founders intended BUT DID NOT SAY. :laugh:
Click to expand...

Again, semantics. The Founders believed in things that we would today call Liberal Socialism and Ethnic Nationalism. Just because those terms didn't exist, does not mean the concepts didn't exist.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Thomas Jefferson missed the boat on several things...but on this one, he is absolutely correct.

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."

I personally would add something about "property" or "wealth" passed on after death being taxed in that same progression.
Click to expand...

You do know that those such as Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adam Smith, etc. opposed the passing on of inheritance such as what we have today, right"

https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you-cant-take-it-with-you

"With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."

Others wanted to go much further; Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" — in fact an inheritance tax — on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."

Even stalwart members of the latter-day Republican Party, the representatives of business and inherited wealth, often emphatically embraced these tenets of economic equality in a democracy. I've mentioned Herbert Hoover's disdain for the "idle rich" and his strong support for breaking up large fortunes. Theodore Roosevelt, who was the first president to propose a steeply graduated tax on inheritances, was another: he declared that the transmission of large wealth to young men "does not do them any real service and is of great and genuine detriment to the community at large.''
 
Old Trapper said:
You do know that those such as Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adam Smith, etc. opposed the passing on of inheritance such as what we have today, right"
Click to expand...

Yes.

What are you doing, Trapper?

You seem on several occasions to be arguing against yourself.

I am with you on this point. You do realize that...right?
 
StoneByStone said:
Ad homiem? When did I insult you?



Again, semantics. The Founders believed in things that we would today call Liberal Socialism and Ethnic Nationalism. Just because those terms didn't exist, does not mean the concepts didn't exist.
Click to expand...

It was Ben Franklin, and the First Continental Congress, that established free medical for our only Constitutional military, the Navy, and then to the Merchant marine, and the poor. Later on the government sponsored homeless shelters for the poor. Free education was another concept of the Founders. The idea that the wealthy should not be taxed to pay for such items began with Reagan, and his failed "trickle down" economics.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Yes.

What are you doing, Trapper?

You seem on several occasions to be arguing against yourself.

I am with you on this point. You do realize that...right?
Click to expand...

Again, I was just clarifying what you seemed to miss with this comment:

"I personally would add something about "property" or "wealth" passed on after death being taxed in that same progression."
 
agree to agree

its not about us personally guys

Its about the ideas that actually work


the republican party FAKED loving the founders

all their ideas come from he people who LOST the debate long ago in the forming of our country


the anti federalist


the Federalists won the debate amoung our founders
 
The US, in the beginning, chartered businesses and corporations. If they did something against the public welfare, they could lose their charters. They had experienced the treatment of American businesses by the British and wantched the actions of the Hudson Bay and other companies. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/ The corporations just kept on fighting until they not only controlled that, but convinced people corporations are good.
 
Old Trapper said:
I'm not arguing against AOC, just your comment which evidently was a typo:

"Where does it say the founders weren't opposed to having concentrated wealth? "
Click to expand...

Because you said "educate yourself" and posted that link, as if to say that the article I posted about AOC was wrong.
 
StoneByStone said:
Ad homiem? When did I insult you?



Again, semantics. The Founders believed in things that we would today call Liberal Socialism and Ethnic Nationalism. Just because those terms didn't exist, does not mean the concepts didn't exist.
Click to expand...

Exactly: The perfect example. The attempt to double down with ad homiem Bull Shit. The founders believed in "LIBERALISM"....not social communism, a drastic difference. What you call LIBERAL today is self defined as PROGRESSIVE and did not exist until the turn of the 20th century. Ask any so called liberal to define themselves today....beginning with BJ Bills spouse. Does she self identify as being a LIBERAL? Of course not...she proudly claims to be a progressive leftist...aka, a socialist... a modern progressive (today those who Identify with true liberalism are nothing but LIBERALTERIAN) those who attempt to hide behind a liberal banner are nothing but PROGRESSIVE SOCIAL COMMUNISTS.

Regardless. Your BS has you expecting others to believe that "YOU" know what the founders believed some 250 years ago.....in spite of the objective, unambiguous text found to exist in history actual that "objectively" contradicts your ad hominem rhetoric.

When you attempt to add words that do not exist......that is called SUBJECTIVE BULLSHIT based upon personal opinion rather than the actual facts in evidence. :palm:


AD HOMINEM: appealing to personal considerations rather than to FACT or REASON.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=vji48Hejgzg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top